There's been a bit of discussion about Film vs Digital in WA film funding recently. Is film really better? As we head towards a more digital and new media world, is there still a place for 16mm in filmmaking?

With limited funding budgets available, the funding is meant to be to pay crew, and have better production values, but what are your thoughts the topic? Does being limited to shooting on digital limit your skills? Is the look that much different?

This forum is open for WA filmmakers to discuss, Film vs Digital.

It is not an issue of which is better. It is a question of what works best for the story you are trying to tell. The choice of format is as important as choice of casting.

Also I would like to add. That ever since the no film rule has been brought in crews have not started getting paid more on FTI productions, producers merely use the extra money to pay for lighting trucks, grip trucks, steady cams, or what have you. The crews working these productions still get paid very little and that is on top of the 4 - 6 hours over time you generally are expected to do every day because of lack of experience from whoever is running the show.

On top of that, shooting film is integral to the development of any cinematographer from amateur into a professional. It is for good reason that AFTRS generally do not accept cinematographers who do not have film experience. And removing possibility for West Australian film makers to develop these skills hurts the career of future cinematographers the most.

As a director, I have shot all my latest films on film and done it on budgets between 20 - 30 k. There are plenty of deals available to make shooting film cheaper and there are cinematographers in town who own equipment and love helping young film makers out. Shooting film teaches a film maker to really figure out their coverage and seriously think about how to edit each individual sequence before and during shooting (Since you cannot just shoot and cover everything from every angle) It forces you to get your actors to a place where they are ready by the time they step in front of the camera so you do not go past 2 - 4 takes.

You generally work faster because you work everything out much more cohesively beforehand.

In general it just makes you a better more economical film maker.

Regardless of all this. Removing the choice. Is on par with telling the film maker who they can or cannot cast. The rationale that removing the choice of shooting film makes the film maker pay the crews more is flawed. It is the same as saying "You cannot hire a big name actor, because you will pay your whole budget to get them" true, usually, but it should be judged on an individual basis. This blanket rule of no shooting film is probably one of the biggest obstacles to film makers in this state developing their technical ability to a professional level.

Anyways, obviously, if you intend to shoot film, when the application is being processed questions should be asked and budgets provided with relevant supporting material to actually prove that the film maker does not intend to screw his crew so they can shoot film. But I myself have managed to shoot film on a 17,500 dollar budget and on a 25,000 dollar budget and a 60,000 dollar budget and every time pay my crew MORE then they would receive on your average link film.

So in short, the idea of not allowing a film maker the choice of shooting film because they will then in turn pay the crew more, is deeply flawed and needs revision.

P.S

I am aware that the decision comes from screenwest, and I hope whoever can change this, please reads this, and does.

Aesthetically there is so much that you can do with digital now that the 'look' of film can be replicated pretty well, so this makes me lean towards digital in one sense. However, when I did my degree we shot on and edited film and as much as there are limitations with using film over digital (in many areas) I think overall these limitations are a necessary discipline that many (not all) new and inexperienced film makers would do well to learn from.

Everything from understandings of exposures, the need for correct lighting, processing effects, and the limited amount of takes usually due to the cost of shooting on film, all work, in my opinion, to focus and strengthen a directors vision and skills. The elements which give them a specific voice and style over others in their field.

There is much to be said for the advances in digital technology that have opened numerous doors for numerous people, and the level of experimentation possible, from which to learn when such a cheap option available is available, is great. But too much freedom to 'fix it in post' or simply generate everything after the fact - if you didn't get exactly what you envisioned, in the can, often leads to over produced and under written/planned work.

Digital V Film is a tough choice, there are many benefits to each, the 'dead' technology of film, as I see it, will lead to the use of film becoming limited to more 'Art-house' films as a stylistic choice and something more similar to the use of celluloid in the structuralist/materialist films as a form of art.

Digital (with it's easy effects processing, low, cost, high definition images and 3D) will become the choice of 'Joe the public' on his monthly trip to the 'movies', and the YouTube generation's default setting for their vlogs, short films, practical jokes, porn and spoof videos.

Maybe the saturation of the industry with cheaply produced digital fare will force a movement of dedicated digital film makers to push the format into more artistic arenas. After all, it's all pretty new and we are still learning, and when we first had sound in films, people suffered through some pretty dodgy uses of it while the film makers found their feet.

So in conclusion....kinda....I think all film makers should (if possible) be exposed to having to create a vision on film, if only for the basic vision-shaping it would force them to undertake and hopefully make their voice stronger and their vision more grounded and thought out.

Having said that, I have been lucky enough to have taken feature films from a script idea in a garage to their premiere in Leicester Square thanks to the freedoms and cost effectiveness of digital. And as much as I'm sure the films could have benefited wonderfully from a longer period of script development and designing before being shot on film. They more than likely wouldn't have happened at all. And the experience, knowledge and creative development we all gained from making those films were worth their weight in celluloid.